openspec_update_revision

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'usually to add metadata or correct information' but does not specify side effects (e.g., whether updates are destructive, concurrent modification handling, or permission requirements). The tool's behavioral traits are underspecified.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the core action. No superfluous words, and the structure efficiently communicates the primary purpose.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the nested metadata object and no output schema, the description should provide more context about return values (e.g., confirmation, updated revision object) or failure modes. It is too brief for a tool with moderate complexity, leaving the agent to infer behavior.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema already documents parameters. The description adds minimal semantic value by hinting that metadata can be added or corrected, but this is already implicit from the schema's metadata object. Baseline 3 is appropriate; no significant extra meaning beyond schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states 'Update an existing revision' which is a specific verb-resource combination. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like openspec_record_revision (create) or openspec_sync_revisions, though the intent is discernible.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., openspec_record_revision for new revisions, openspec_list_revisions for viewing). The description lacks context about prerequisites or typical use cases beyond the generic 'add metadata or correct information'.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.